Murali Purushothaman, J.
1. This Original Petition is preferred against the order dated 20.10.2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A (EKM) No.955 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner was a candidate included in Annexure A1 rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for appointment to the post of Excise Guard in the Excise Department in Malappuram District. The rank list was published on 10.09.2009. The petitioner holds rank No.101 in the main list in Annexure A1. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent who was ranked above him (rank No.96) and who belonged to Ezhava category relinquished his claim for appointment as per Annexure A2 letter dated 10.02.2014 addressed to the District Officer, PSC, the 4th respondent. In Annexure A2, the 5th respondent has stated that he is not interested in joining the post of Excise Guard as he is working as Process Server in the Court at Manjeri. Accordingly, he requested to delete his name from the rank list. However, the District Officer, PSC rejected the relinquishment letter by Annexure A3 dated 14.03.2014 on the ground that the signature of the 5th respondent in Annexure A2 is different from his signature in the application. Later, the PSC issued advice memo to the 5th respondent on 19.03.2014 in an Ezhava turn. The 5th respondent did not accept the advice memo or joined duty. The rank list expired on 10.03.2014. According to the petitioner, if Annexure A2 relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent had been accepted by the PSC, the petitioner who is ranked 101 in Annexure A1 would have been advised and appointed to the post of Excise Guard. The petitioner has accordingly filed the Original Application for a declaration that he is entitled to be advised and appointed to the post of Excise Guard in Malappuram District in the vacancy in which the 5th respondent was erroneously advised. A further declaration is sought to the effect that the 4th respondent is liable to accept Annexure A2 relinquishment letter and pass orders deleting the name of the 5th respondent from Annexure A1 rank list and thereby cancel the advice memo issued to the 5th respondent. A direction is also sought to the 4th respondent to advice the petitioner in the vacancy which was advised to the 5th respondent.
3. The PSC has filed a Reply Statement in the O.A wherein it is stated that the relinquishment by the 5th respondent could not be accepted since his signature in Annxure A2 relinquishment letter differs from that in his application. The statement refers to Rule 18 (ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (for short, the 'Rules') and the Guidelines issued by the PSC which provide that the signature and address of the candidate on the request for relinquishment must be verified with reference to those in his/her application for the post, identification certificate etc available in the office to see that they are identical and the request is genuine. If the request is not genuine, it has to be summarily rejected and the fact be intimated to the candidate. It is stated that rejection of request of the 5th respondent for relinquishment was intimated to him and he was advised for recruitment on 19.03.2014 on his turn against a vacancy reported on 05.03.2014. However, he did not join duty. The non-joining duty vacancy was reported to the PSC on 04.06.2014. Since the NJD vacancy was reported after the expiry of the rank list on 10.03.2014, no advice was made. It is stated that while considering a request for relinquishment, the PSC has to make it doubly sure that the candidate himself has submitted the application and the action taken by the PSC is strictly in accordance with the Rules. It is also contended that the rejection of relinquishment will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same.
4. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that the acceptance or not of a relinquishment by a candidate included in the rank list is something between the PSC and the candidate concerned and that the PSC did not accept the relinquishment by the 5th respondent since his signature in the relinquishment differed from that in the application and the Tribunal justified the action of the PSC. The Tribunal also observed that, the PSC, a body constituted under Article 320 of the Constitution of India is vested with the powers to regulate its own procedure and it was in conformity with the above procedure that the relinquishment letter by the 5th respondent was not accepted by the PSC.
5. The order of the Tribunal is impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal failed to take note of the provisions of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules. In the light of the said provisions, it is contended that the Tribunal ought not have held that the question of acceptance or non acceptance of relinquishment letter is a matter between the candidate and the PSC. It is contended that the rejection of Annexure A2 relinquishment letter of the 5th respondent is contrary to Rule 18(ii) of the Rules. Had Annexure A2 relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent been accepted by the PSC, the petitioner, as the next eligible candidate, would have been advised and appointed to the post of Excise Guard in due turn.
6. A counter affidavit is filed by the PSC in the Original Petition reiterating the stand taken in the Reply Statement filed in the Original Application.
7. Heard Smt. Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel for the PSC and Sri. A.J. Varghese, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
8. Rule 18 of the Rules prescribes the procedure as to how a relinquishment letter should be sent and how it should be accepted. Rule 18(ii) reads as follows:
"18(ii). Any candidate whose name has been included in a ranked list prepared by the Commission may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing, giving his/her full address and signature, duly attested by a Gazetted Officer of State/Central Government with signature, name, designation and office seal, on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice based on which he/she is to be advised. The Commission shall thereupon remove his/her name from the ranked list and advise another candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the ranked list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission."
9. A perusal of the Annexure A2 relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent shows that the requirements of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules for relinquishing his claim for appointment have been duly met. Annexure A2 letter of the 5th respondent states that his name has been included at rank No.96 of Annexure A1 and since he is working as Process Server in Manjeri Court, he is not interested to join duty as Excise Guard and his name may be deleted from the rank list. The 5th respondent has put his signature, date and place below his request. It also contains his name and address, the details of the rank list and his rank position. A gazetted officer has duly attested the relinquishment and his name and designation and office seal are also shown therein. There is also an endorsement by the Sheristhadar of Sub Court, Manjeri, the gazetted officer who attested the relinquishment that the 'literate deponent personally known to me, solemnly affirmed and signed before me, this the 10th day of February, 2014'. The PSC has no case that the relinquishment was received after the date of receipt of requisition for advice by the 5th respondent. Admittedly, no form has been prescribed by the PSC for submission of relinquishment. As noted, Rule 18(ii) requires that the relinquishment shall be in writing, giving his/her full address and signature, duly attested by a gazetted officer of State/Central Government with signature, name, designation and office seal on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice. Thus, all the requirements under Rule 18(ii) are satisfied in Annexure A2. The case of the PSC is that the signature of the 5th respondent in Annexure A2 differs from that in the application for the post. It is contended by the PSC that, while considering a request for relinquishment, the PSC has to make it doubly sure that the candidate himself has submitted the application.
10. The object of introduction of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission and another v. Chandini Chandran [2019 (3) KHC 401: 2019 (2) KLT 1153: ILR 2019 (2) Ker. 864] wherein it was held as follows:
“7. R.18(ii) of the Rules was amended as above by notification dated 29/03/2005 by publication in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 665 with an avowed object to prevent bartering of candidature. Some of those in the ranked list advised by the PSC may not be eager to accept the appointment and hence would be willing to relinquish their claim on receiving consideration. This is precisely to avert that mischief has R.18(ii) of the Rules been introduced insisting on relinquishment on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice. That will ensure that the relinquishment by the candidate is on his own volition and bona fide in order to give way for another candidate to be advised by the PSC according to rules.”
11. In Smitha. M.G. v. State of Kerala and others [2022 KHC 5098: 2022 (5) KLT 15], another Division Bench of this Court held that the stipulations set by the PSC, prescribing the manner in which applications are to be submitted by candidates, must be strictly and scrupulously enforced by the PSC with full rigor in the case of relinquishment letter as well. This Court held as follows:
“14. No doubt, it is trite that stipulations insisted upon by the Commission prescribing the manner in which applications are to be submitted by the candidates have to be strictly and scrupulously complied with; that any lapse on the part of the candidate in complying with such stipulations shall result in rejection of application and that any dilution of the stipulations by courts on a finding that the stipulations have been substantially complied with would only be counter productive. It is also trite that since a vast majority of candidates succeed in submitting flawless applications, indulgence to a few who are unable to do so cannot be justified and such indulgence would certainly create unnecessary hurdles for the Commission in the matter of discharging its functions. The aforesaid principles would apply with all vigour in the case of relinquishment letter insisted by the Commission also, especially when the right given to a candidate who has secured a place in the ranked list to relinquish the same is likely to be exercised for monetary consideration as well. But that does not mean that in a case where this court finds that the requirements of the Rule have been scrupulously complied with by a candidate, the benefit of the same cannot be availed by the candidate next in the order of merit.”
12. Annexure A2 relinquishment was made by the 5th respondent on 10.02.2014 and the same was received by the 4th respondent on 12.02.2014. The rejection of relinquishment was intimated to the 5th respondent by Annexure A3 letter dated 14.03.2014. The 5th respondent was advised for recruitment on 19.03.2014. As noted, the relinquishment was rejected on the ground that the signature of the 5th respondent in Annexure A2 differs from his signature in the application. When the PSC found the relinquishment defective, as the signature of the 5th respondent in the relinquishment differed from his signature in the application, the PSC could have verified with the 5th respondent whether the request was genuine. The PSC took more than a month to reject the relinquishment, citing the above defect. This period would have been sufficient for the PSC to verify with the candidate, the authenticity of his request for relinquishment.
13. Though notice was served on the 5th respondent, there is no appearance. This Court by order dated 10.10.2024 directed the Registry to get a report from the Sub Court, Manjeri, as to the engagement of the 5th respondent as process server and to verify whether Annexure A2 is genuine or not. A copy of Annexure A2 was directed to be forwarded to the Sub Court, Manjeri.
14. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sub Court, Manjeri has submitted a report dated 17.10.2024 enclosing a copy of the letter dated 17.10.2024 submitted by the 5th respondent, presently working on deputation as Clerk at Munsiff's Court, Nilambur. In the letter submitted by the 5th respondent before the Civil Judge, Sub Court, Manjeri, he has stated that Annexure A2 relinquishment letter was submitted by him and he admits his signature thereon. His letter dated 17.10.2024 is attested by the Junior Superintendent of the Munsiff Magistrate’s Court, Nilambur. Thus, the genuineness of Annexure A2 is admitted by the 5th respondent.
15. We are of the view that, in fact, similar exercise could have been done by the PSC itself upon receipt of Annexure A2 when they noticed that the signature in the relinquishment letter and in the application differed. Instead of verifying with the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent rejected the relinquishment and issued advice memo to the 5th respondent. Though it is within the discretion of the PSC to accept or reject the relinquishment, the PSC did not exercise that discretion judiciously. The rejection of Annexure A2 relinquishment is arbitrary, unfair and irrational. The PSC is not justified in not acting upon Annexure A2 relinquishment submitted by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent did not join pursuant to the advice and the resultant NJD vacancy could not be filled since the rank list had expired by the time the NJD vacancy was reported. Had Annexure A2 relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent been accepted by the PSC, the petitioner, as the next eligible candidate, would have been advised and appointed to the post of Excise Guard in due turn. Therefore, the contention of the PSC that the rejection of relinquishment of the 5th respondent will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same is without any merit.
It is not disputed by the PSC that the petitioner was the candidate next in the order of merit to be advised upon relinquishment by the 5th respondent belonging to the same community. Accordingly, it is declared that the rejection of relinquishment of the 5th respondent by the PSC is wrong and the advise memo issued to the 5th respondent on 19.03.2014 is set aside. The order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) No.955 of 2014 shall also stand set aside. The Original Petition is allowed directing the PSC to delete the name of the 5th respondent from Annexure A1 rank list and advise the petitioner for appointment in the vacancy which was advised to the 5th respondent. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
